All at Sea

[McColm]

The HP Victor would have been great at sea, as it has a longer weapons bay than the B-1 Bone and the wings could fold up to save on storage above deck. They could have used it as a platform to launch the Sea Lightning. As a whiff you don't have to worry about the weight!!

[PR19_Kit]

It would need the MOTHER of all deck lifts though!

[Mossie]

That brings with it another whiff, megacarriers capable of deploying strategic bombers, force projection on steroids.

It's crazy enough that I bet someone in defence had the idea & I'm hoping someone will stick plans on the table....

[Hobbes]

Wasn't the USS United States an attempt in that direction?

[tigercat]

How would the P47 have fared at sea?

[Logan Hartke]

It would probably have done alright as long as it was catapult launched much of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR3yR0ZOpxc
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-47-carrier-capable-13506.html
http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21088&start=0
http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1134619751/P-47+Carrier+Launch+%28pic%29
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p47images.html
http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/heroes/durwoodwilliams/333rdhistory.shtml

Cheers,

Logan

[rickshaw]

It's relatively easy to fly off a carrier.  The landing on qualities are what are important.  The P-51 was found to have bad landing on qualities (apparently it used to "float" over the wires), which is why the USN wasn't willing to use it.  Apparently the assessment was that expert pilots could handle it and correct for its bad landing qualities but not all pilots are experts, so it was rejected.

[Logan Hartke]

Agreed, though on that specific point, the P-47 wasn't known for "floating".   

Cheers,

Logan

[McColm]

I wonder if anyone thought of putting a Lancaster bomber on an aircraft carrier?

[Gondor]

I wonder if anyone thought of putting a Lancaster bomber on an aircraft carrier?

You would need one realy BIG carrier and catapult to launch one

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

I wonder if anyone thought of putting a Lancaster bomber on an aircraft carrier?

You would need one realy BIG carrier and catapult to launch one

Somewhere on t'Net there's a photo of a Manchester mounted on a land based catapult. I can remember wondering at the time why ANYone would even want to think of such madness.

I can't find the photo with a Google search but the Wiki page for the Manchester mentions '....Provision for catapult assisted takeoff to permit the maximum load was also part of the specification....'

Seems their Airships were cognicent of the RR Vulture's lack of power even before they put it in the aeroplane!

[McColm]

My thinking behind this is similar to the article I read about the US Navy launching the Lockheed Neptune from an aircraft carrier. There is no mention of how the Neptune was loaded onto the aircraft carrier or whether or not it ever landed on one. The carrier could of being used just to launch the bomber and once the mission is over land at a friendly airfield.

[Mossie]

I wonder if anyone thought of putting a Lancaster bomber on an aircraft carrier?

There was Habbakuk of course. The general idea was that it would have been large enough that heavy bombers would have been able to take off whithout assistance.

[rickshaw]

I wonder if anyone thought of putting a Lancaster bomber on an aircraft carrier?

You would need one realy BIG carrier and catapult to launch one

Somewhere on t'Net there's a photo of a Manchester mounted on a land based catapult. I can remember wondering at the time why ANYone would even want to think of such madness.

I can't find the photo with a Google search but the Wiki page for the Manchester mentions '....Provision for catapult assisted takeoff to permit the maximum load was also part of the specification....'

Seems their Airships were cognicent of the RR Vulture's lack of power even before they put it in the aeroplane!

The idea was to ensure that you could use shorter runways to operate fully loaded aircraft.   You'd launch with the catapult and return much more lightly loaded and so was able to use the short runway.  Not as daft as it sounds, actually, considering that airstrip extension was a continual and expensive problem in the 1930-40s.

Must have been a hell of a ride, though.  You wouldn't want an engine to fail on take-off, would you?   

[Logan Hartke]

I think an engine failing on the Manchester under most circumstances was dire.

Cheers,

Logan